This is a spin-off from the .45 Super thread in Charlie's section. I will initiate it with two comments.

1. I used to do a lot of my shooting and carry with a S&W 6906, subsequently replaced by a 3913, when the latter hit the market. Both frames developed what is referred to as "wiring,", where very thin strips of metal peeled of the upper, outer edges of the rails on the aluminum-alloy frames. I never saw any change in accuracy or reliability as a result but shifted to revolver carry shortly afterward.

2. I had read some laudatory comments about the Star PD, along with a caution that the plastic recoil buffer requires replacement around every 500 rounds. One day a friend who used to shoot when I did at a now-closed indoor range brought his son-in-law's PD and offered to let me shoot it. After firing the contents of one magazine I told him about the buffer issue and field-striped the gun, to show him what I was describing. I discovered a crack in the left rail, just above the hole for the shaft of the slide-release lever. The pistol had functioned fine for the few rounds I had fired but, as I recall, the cracked rail had curled slightly and it was a struggle to reassemble it.

I carried a lightweight Commander for years. It didn't get a lot of rounds but never showed any wear or other ill effect.

I've got two 3913s. One is converted to .40 S&W and has quite a few rounds with no evidence of trouble. The other is my formal tux and tie gun that sees no use at all since the last time I wore a tux was too far back to remember. Actually it is a gun Novak tricked out for me.

The thing about cracked frames is often much ado about nothing. Cracks are not all that rare but are often benign and the gun rocks along without incident.

I recall a Skeeter Skelton 10K rounds test of the S&W 59. Somewhere around 8K rounds, one of the barrel unlocking ramps was discovered to have sheared off the frame at some previous time. After talking to Smith, they completed the test with no significant changes in reliability or accuracy.

My wife bought a 3914 on my suggestion while she was probation/parole. I've put most of the wear & tear on it with no real issues. I estimate <500 rounds total, but +P delivers much more muzzle flip than I like.

...I've got two 3913s. One is converted to .40 S&W and has quite a few rounds with no evidence of trouble. The other is my formal tux and tie gun that sees no use at all since the last time I wore a tux was too far back to remember. Actually it is a gun Novak tricked out for me...

Charley:

I believe that I have the only other semi-official .40cal 3913 in existence. Mine was made to prove a point and show that such a gun would hold up. It, like yours, had a number of rounds put through it but there was no damage, imperceptible wear and after it was cleaned up, it looked like new.

I was told by our friend who put both of them together (mine was built because I knew that you had one that worked) that modifying the original factory mags (that’s all that was available at the time) was a nightmare and he would make no more.

I always thought that it was the perfect pistol: flatter than all get out and a cartridge that I really grew to like. Sorta like a 50-year-later updated Walther PP in regard to its size and lockwork (action).

Some years back, I was given a box of junk that included the frames and a few random parts to build up an early 59 and a later 3rd-gen 5906. So I hit eBay (for the top halves) and Numrich (for various bits and pieces) and just a few hundred dollars later, I had a couple new 9mms.

The grip and the lockwork of the 5906 are so much improved over the early 59 that it's difficult to believe they're basically the same gun. But handling them both, the 59 feels "just right" in weight and balance and the 5906 seems heavy and clunky.

Someday I hope to run into a great deal on a 5904 and then I'll have the best of both worlds. And I'll still have the 5906 to shoot the hell out of.

In my misspent youth the consensus was an aluminum alloy frame was for carry, a steel frame for practice. There was also a contingent that advocated a .22 LR version of the carry gun. Most of the LEOs back in the 50's and 60's went with the one gun for everything, but those were less wealthy days.

During my military career I owned both a .45 ACP Mk IV S 70 and a .45 CLW Commander. I shot a LOT of free ammo (this was after the fracas in SEA and the Army was giving .45 away on the range, you couldn't keep the cases however) and the Army was a lot more tolerant of personal weapons. The CLW was not shot a lot, just there to be carried if needed. I still have the MK IV, now wearing a set of Novak sights and I have NO idea how many rounds have been fired through it. As I got older and carry got impossible in Ohio I let the CLW go. Now that I'm in the CCW friendly (sort of) state of FL, I carry either an aluminum frame revolver, S&W Model 38, or one of two plastic framed pistols, Ruger LCP or Kahr 9094.

I've never seen any failures of aluminum frames, but my experience is limited. I have traded off or sold ALL my alloy framed semi-auto pistols. CLW, S&W 39-2, Browning HP. The Smith was too big for my hand, the Browning was traded for the Colt MK IV, and the CLW sold to add to down payment on a house.

I suspect modern computer design and plastic frames have made alloy frames an unnecessary expense. The results of Ruger and S&W experiments in revolvers are still pending. Other than the luxury M1911 clone market, I suspect we will not see a new alloy design in the future.

Geoff
Who is rather shocked now that he thinks about his alloy frame battery.

The early S&W’s and Walther P-1’s, as well as other pistols of the same era. LW Commander frames were famous for cracking at the slide stop hole (as were steel frames) and sometimes where dust cover meets the slide rails. Colt’s aluminum versions of the Detective Special were well known to give up the ghost after several thousand rounds, even if you didn’t use +P ammunition. These are probably the source of rumors of cracked aluminum frames. And before the ‘80’s I do recall seeing cracked frames on occasion when perusing gun shows; it was just one of those things you checked for if you were considering a handgun with an aluminum frame.

I notice that most everyone’s stories of their aluminum frames tend to gravitate toward post 1980 guns. I believe by that time the metallurgy question had been answered quite well in regards to aluminum frames. It’s a bit ironic that the question would be answered at nearly the precise time that the market just plain demanded a return to steel frames.

I remember in the '70s, "the market" wanted steel-frame Commanders. "Combat conversion" gunsmiths did a brisk business chopping WWII surplus 1911A1s and postwar and Series 70 commercial Colts to Commander length, sometimes even shorter. Colt finally woke up and smelled the toast and brought out the steel Combat Commanders in, what, '74, '75, '76? They were a big deal at the time and very hot.

In my misspent youth the consensus was an aluminum alloy frame was for carry, a steel frame for practice. There was also a contingent that advocated a .22 LR version of the carry gun. Most of the LEOs back in the 50's and 60's went with the one gun for everything, but those were less wealthy days.

Being bored to tears at work whilst the rest of y'all are sitting around burping....

Back in the 50's & 60's both training and practice weren't what they are today for the bulk of LEO's. It was not unreasonable for officers to complete 20 years of service with about 2000 rounds through the weapon-excluding whatever academy they may have completed. I say "may have completed" because an academy was generally something seen only in major cities like LA & NY or some state forces through most of the 50's and into the 60's.

I had a moment to take a break and not having been able to check things in a while, I was happy that your post brought this thread back to life for I saw that I had long failed to respond to Charlie about the magazines he mentioned as well as not offering a few comments to several other gentlemen about some of the things they said here.

So in order…

Charlie:

Yes, I did learn about the Ramline mags and have a number of them around here somewhere. The best thing was that as so few people appreciated them in the 3913 to begin with, they could often be picked up on sale.

Snake45:

I taught with a 5906 full time for over two years; literally shooting it every day and it was an amazingly reliable handgun. Everybody has their preferences and I certainly wouldn’t try to change your mind about yours but you might find that over time, it isn’t quite as “heavy and clunky” a gun as you feel it is now.

As you know, a lot of this stuff is not only what we’ve shot in the past but also what we later come up with and “try” in the future. Years ago, I was surprised when I found myself responsible for test-firing and selecting a bunch of the “X”-guns that were destined for Bisley that at first, the snap of the .40 cal in those pistols didn’t seem quite “right” to me. In fact, it was a bit unsettling. Not because it was that bad (it wasn’t) but because I had burned up so much ammo in basically identical guns for the previous couple of years, I had been “programmed” to expect something else. But within four or five hours of shooting a dozen or more of these test-bed .40’s non-stop to figure out which ones to send, they seemed no different to me than the 9mm’s I had grown so accustomed to. So maybe over time "shoot(ing) the hell out of" your 5906 might change your mind as well.

Anyway, just a thought.

“Skeptic49”

Several points.

Like you I have never seen any of my aluminum pistol frames fail but I know a number of people who have seen either non-stoppage-creating fractures or breakages, so I believe they do happen; especially in some of the older (original) lightweight 1911 types. I will tell you that I have seen more than a few alloy revolver frames fail; generally some sort of fracture thru the area under the barrel that is cut away for the crane/yoke. But to be honest as I saw many that did not fail there, I think it had as much to do with a tolerancing issue between the threaded hole in the frame and the threaded shank on the barrel as it did anything else. In my experience (certainly not the best point of reference), this was peculiar to one brand. I also saw a number of failures in another brand where cracks would originate at the point where the cylinder lug was pressed into the frame. But again, this could have been as much a tolerancing problem (and the shape of the hole and the lug) as it was anything else.

Your remark about suspecting that “modern computer design and plastic frames have made alloy frames an unnecessary expense” is an interesting one. I respectfully submit that I don’t think that it took “modern computer design” to make this happen. It certainly helped but to be honest, it was computer aided design and, more importantly, computer aided manufacturing that allowed metal frame guns (of any kind) to hold on for as long as they have. For it was cost that drove the manufacturers to move toward polymer frames and little else. If you have a large number of cuts to make in order to transform a block of metal into a usable receiver, the old days of multiple machines, multiple set ups and multiple people to do the work had to end if the product was to remain affordable. But even with some of the single-fixturing machines in use today (which are expensive themselves), you’ve still got a lot of work, a lot of time and a lot of tooling being worn down in order to do it. You are also bound to have some sort of scrap and rework rates. But if you can employ a conventional injection molding machine (which means if you don’t want to shoot the frames yourself, you can job them out to just about anybody who knows what they are doing) and have a multi-cavity mold (these days often made to very high standards offshore) spit out finished parts as easily as if they were power drill housings, then why wouldn’t you make the switch? The biggest problem was getting people to accept the concept. And for people today (who probably have more plastic than metal in the cars that they drive), the reluctance to accept its use here was nothing like the resistance to aluminum over steel was in the “old” days.

Finally, and in regard to your remarks about your “misspent youth”, please take a look at my comments to “William R. Moore” below.

“Kevin Gibson”

Your closing remark that “It’s a bit ironic that the question would be answered at nearly the precise time that the market just plain demanded a return to steel frames.” not only dovetails into my closing remark to “Skeptic49” (above) but it is also something that I always point to in regard to a gun that I really like: the SIG P220. When Hawes was first to bring them in, they went nowhere. When Browning brought them in (under their name), they were steel, they weren’t “blue”, they weren’t single action, they didn’t have wood grips, and they weren’t a Hi-Power. Now the people I convinced to buy them, loved them but generally, they didn’t sell. Separately, people were also leery about the Colt’s and Smith’s because of all the horror stories they had “heard” about them (many of them exaggerated and approaching Urban Legend status; yes some of them broke but not all of them and not in the disastrous ways often put forward). Then the Beretta (a gun not without other “issues” itself) comes along after winning the government contract, Sig starts promoting things heavily after not winning the government contract, and Smith finally develops a double column 9mm that doesn’t fit your hand like a 2x4. And nobody cares anything about the fact that these were alloy-framed guns. As I said to “Skeptic49”, I (apparently like you) think it was a sign of the times.

“spwenger”

Your comment “I thought the market has been demanding polymer frames. SIG, for example, had to come up with the P250 because so many RFP's are specifying polymer-frame, striker-fired pistols.” made in regard to the same statement from “Kevin Gibson” that I address above, is correct for as far as it goes but (if I may say so) it is perhaps a bit incomplete or maybe not as all-encompassing as it could be. There is a certain portion of the market (both civilian and LE individual purchasers) that just demand a polymer frame for they (rightfully or wrongfully) believe that it is the only way to go. Those people will not buy a metal gun (without an awful lot of prompting) and as a group, they are getting bigger all the time. Department purchases are something else again. “Bids” get spec’d the way they do for any number of reasons: maybe “demand”; maybe “technology”; maybe “cost”; maybe something else altogether. But in both cases (bids and retail sales), oftentimes metal guns and the prices they must sell for just can’t compete or be sold in their place. So looking at all this, you have public interest, price limits and (not mentioned here but alluded to in my remarks to “Skeptic49”) “profit margin”. All of these things (in both the public and governmental sectors) are what is really moving the manufacturers to polymer guns. Especially when one considers how few guns (in the overall scheme of things) are sold annually into the departmental/agency market as compared to overall retail sales. The factories can “make” more in their everyday sales and they can discount heavily to win bids and to obtain non-bid agency purchases if necessary. I think that is what's really driving the sale of polymer guns.

“William R. Moore” and “Skeptic49”

First, I would have to say that in many parts of this country, the “limited” training you mentioned actually continued well into the 1980’s. And the worst part (to me anyway, and maybe I’m just getting old and crotchety), is that perhaps as training began to improve, individual interest in shooting began to wane. Considering that not that many cops were regular shooters (or even had an interest in firearms) to begin with, it should be of great concern that fewer and fewer of them care much about (or care about being proficient with) this rather serious tool they carry with them today.

Now, what about the ones that do? Yes, they are being paid more than ever before but if they work for an agency that doesn’t encourage regular practice or doesn’t supply the ammo for it, look at what stuff costs these days. Now maybe, such pricing is just a “blip” in the long term but it has been a long blip in any case. And if one believes that finding cops that shoot is a hard thing to do, try finding ones that reload! Now we all know ones that do both but look at the big picture here. Unfortunately, most officers don’t participate in either activity.

Therefore, while I will never believe that training with firearms and ammunition that doesn’t reflect or mirror what is carried on and off the job is the only way to go, I think that as pricing (and sometimes just availability) doesn’t seem destined to improve at any time soon, then finding and employing .22 caliber “trainers” might not only be the option they've always been but one that people (cops or not) will begin turning to if good ones are available and the things (that I’ve mentioned regarding the ammo) don’t get better.

There was a reason why Smith routinely sold Model 18’s to the public and made Model 45’s (basically .22cal Model 10’s) for the Post Office (there were others). They allowed the officers of those days to practice more cheaply and often on less-than-formal ranges. While the Europeans have other reasons for owning .22 trainers (and caliber conversions for bigger bore handguns), they do this kind of thing all the time for reasons of cost and where they can shoot.

And while pistol “conversions” or sub-caliber reductions for “training” have often been mistrusted or at least been misunderstood in their purpose or level of performance in this country, looking at reliable factory guns like the Ruger 22/45 or aftermarket conversions like the Marvel, those fears should really go away. If I can own something like them and understand that I am not experiencing the recoil and recovery of a true 1911 but can still experience skill building live fire shooting at a fraction of the cost for .45 ball (or maybe even a reloaded 200gr or 225gr SWC), then maybe the days of advocating “a .22 LR version of the carry gun” could come back with us.

So along the lines of what started this thread (and not my response here), if such a recognition of value is made by the shooting public, it, along with what a close friend of Charlie’s and mine used to call a pretty high “coefficient of neatness” could logically result in something like an accurate, affordable and quality manufacture .22caliber lightweight Commander. How cool would that be?

Well, enough for today. I’ve got to get back to it. You guys take care and please take my comments in the respectful manner in which they are intended. All of you had great things to say; I just thought I’d stick my 2¢ in.

First, I would have to say that in many parts of this country, the “limited” training you mentioned actually continued well into the 1980’s. And the worst part (to me anyway, and maybe I’m just getting old and crotchety), is that perhaps as training began to improve, individual interest in shooting began to wane.

I was trying to be polite. I'll also note that round count isn't necessarily an indicator of quality of training. I'm not sure if lack of interest or a refusal to believe that the skill set may save their very own life is the larger issue in some cases.

Plastic is, in fact, cheaper. We were able to convert everyone to a new pistol for less than it would have cost us to replace the 10mm's about half of us carried with steel .40's to match the new kids on the block. There's also a weight savings (more important now that service types are carrying more than a gun, reload and handcuffs) and reduction in maintenance. There's also some intangibiles like the frame not leaching heat from your hands in the cold.

Therefore, while I will never believe that training with firearms and ammunition that doesn’t reflect or mirror what is carried on and off the job is the only way to go, I think that as pricing (and sometimes just availability) doesn’t seem destined to improve at any time soon, then finding and employing .22 caliber “trainers” might not only be the option they've always been but one that people (cops or not) will begin turning to if good ones are available and the things (that I’ve mentioned regarding the ammo) don’t get better.

There was a reason why Smith routinely sold Model 18’s to the public and made Model 45’s (basically .22cal Model 10’s) for the Post Office (there were others). They allowed the officers of those days to practice more cheaply and often on less-than-formal ranges. While the Europeans have other reasons for owning .22 trainers (and caliber conversions for bigger bore handguns), they do this kind of thing all the time for reasons of cost and where they can shoot.

And while pistol “conversions” or sub-caliber reductions for “training” have often been mistrusted or at least been misunderstood in their purpose or level of performance in this country, looking at reliable factory guns like the Ruger 22/45 or aftermarket conversions like the Marvel, those fears should really go away. If I can own something like them and understand that I am not experiencing the recoil and recovery of a true 1911 but can still experience skill building live fire shooting at a fraction of the cost for .45 ball (or maybe even a reloaded 200gr or 225gr SWC), then maybe the days of advocating “a .22 LR version of the carry gun” could come back with us.

I learned about 25 years ago that a .22 conversion or "equivalent" would do anything (for training) that the "real gun" would do except get you used to dealing with recoil. I learned that when shooting one of these things, you have to keep in mind all the time that it's a .22, but you still need to grip and stance it just as firmly as you would with the "real gun," and not slacken up, lest you get a nasty surprise next time you shoot the centerfire caliber. Also learned that if you're going to shoot both .22 and CF in the same range session, DON'T "finish off" with the CF ammo, START with that, as a reminder to keep your grip and stance firm.

Quote:

So along the lines of what started this thread (and not my response here), if such a recognition of value is made by the shooting public, it, along with what a close friend of Charlie’s and mine used to call a pretty high “coefficient of neatness” could logically result in something like an accurate, affordable and quality manufacture .22caliber lightweight Commander. How cool would that be?

If you already own a steel 1911, you can have a .22 LW Commander for $210. Just put a Ciener Commander .22 conversion on your 1911 (all his 1911 slides fit all length 1911 frames, no need to worry about recoil shield/tunnel length) and you're good to go. Weight of the Frankengun is very similar to a LW Commander, though of course the balance will be slightly different, due to the Ciener's alloy slide. I've been shooting such a combination for almost a decade now.

A Ciener conversion on an alloy 1911 frame is just too light for me. Doesn't feel realistic at all, feels like a toy, but there are some people who would be looking for the lightest gun they could get, and this would work for them just fine. I believe all the Kimber .22 1911s are built this way, which I consider a shame.

Snake I have one of the Kimber 22s and you're right that it is on an alloy frame but I don't think of it as a conversion, but a complete gun that has it's own appeal. I also use it to introduce a new shooter to the 1911 platform.

My mentor, the late Bob Day made a Commander size version of his .22 conversion unit that he called "El Macho". I have one but honestly found no advantage over the standard unit.

I haven't heard "coefficient of neatness" in a long time but suspect I'll steal it- again. The other word he used often that still crops up in my mind from time to time is, "zoomy". Like that.